[G.R. No. 129079.February 15, 2000]

REP. OF THE PHILS. vs. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 15 2000.

G.R. No. 129079(Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Lucenito N. Tagle, Presiding Judge Of RTC of Imus, Cavite, Branch 120; and Helena Z. Benitez.)

In her Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, private respondent contends that "the State has wielded its power of eminent domain capriciously and arbitrarily," because the Petition for Expropriation was instituted in order to frustrate the ejectment suit she had earlier filed against PHRDC.Citing Sulit v. CA (268 SCRA 441, February 17, 1997), she further argues that "the special and peculiar circumstances of this case should favor the non-applicability of the ministerial duty of the court to issue writ of possession in expropriation proceeding in the light of Section 7 of EQ 1035." In her Supplemental Motion, private respondent further invokes Filstream v. CA (284 SCRA 716, January 23, 1998), in which the Court struck down the expropriation suit filed by the City of Manila for failure to comply with all the requirements under RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992).Respondent argues that, in the present case, petitioner violated Section 5 of EQ 1035, which required the State to firstnegotiate with the landowner before filing an expropriation suit.

These were reiterated in its Reply received by this Court on January 19, 2000.

The arguments are not convincing.As already explained in our Decision, the pendency of an ejectment suit filed by the property owner does not by itself render the State's exercise of eminent domain "capricious or whimsical." We will not repeat here the reasons already stated in said Decision.Suffice it to stress that the expropriation suit was not at all attended by caprice or whim.

Sulit v CA is not applicable.First, that case involved the foreclosure of a mortgage, not the exercise of eminent domain.Second and more important, while the Court held that "special or peculiar" circumstances may bar a judge from exercising its ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession, respondent failed to show that such peculiar circumstances are present in this case.

Likewise, respondent's reliance on Filstream v. CA is misplaced, because there is no showing that petitioner failed to comply with the applicable statute, Executive Order No 1035.We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General, in its Comment, that PHRDC offered to purchase the land, but respondent had not acted on the matter.Indeed, respondent's complaints -- that the negotiations dealt with the 7-hectare land, not the 10-hectare land subject of this suit, and that there was a five-year hiatus between the date of PHRDC general manager's offer to purchase in 1991 and the institution of the eminent domain case in 1996 -- would have been addressed had respondent answered the offer.Respondent, however, opted to ignore it.Clearly, there is no factual basis for respondent's insistence that "petitioner was never interested in negotiating for the purchase of the land."

In any event, respondent failed to raise this point below.The well-settled rule is that no new matters or issues may be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari, let alone in a motion for reconsideration (Manalili v. CA, 280 SCRA 400, October 9, 1997; Mendoza v. CA, 274 SCRA 527, June 20, 1997; Abella v. CA, 257 SCRA 482, June 20, 1996; Tay Chun v. CA, 229 SCRA 151, January 7, 1994).

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , the Court DENIES with finality the Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.No further pleadings will be entertained.Buena, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com